Back
1984 Supreme(MP) 173
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.K. Seth, J.
Gulshan (Smt., Dr.)
Vs
Sahdevi Pal (Smt.) and another
C. Rev. No. 162 of 1984 of the order passed by Shri P.L. Rathore, IV Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur;
Decided on: 2-3-1984
Ravish Agarwal for applicant;
P.C. Pathak for non-applicants.
Headnote:(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115 & O. 39, Rr. 1 & 2 -- temporary injunction -- is discretionary -- High Court would ordinarily be slow in interfering in this discretion in revision -- but there may be exceptional cases wherein interference in revision is called for -- matters to be considered by the High Court in such cases.
It needs no saying that the grant of interim injunction being a discretionary relief, the High Court in exercise of its revisional powers would ordinarily be slow in interfering with the orders passed by the Courts below. But, then, there may be exceptional cases in which the orders passed by the Courts below having not taken into consideration the principles governing the grant of temporary injunction and the situation may be such that if the orders passed by them are allowed to stand they may occasion a failure of justice or cause an irreparable injury to the party .against whom they have been made.
In such cases, the High Court would be failing to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law if it does not come to the rescue of the aggrieved party. [Para 5
(2) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 -- after expiry of contracted period of tenancy -- tenant becomes a statutory tenant -- has 'a right of quiet enjoyment' of the rented accommodation for the purpose of running his or her business without interruption by the landlords or their agents or servants -- any interference in such quiet enjoyment is unlawful. [Para 6
(3) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S. 108, Clause (e) -- tenant has right for quiet enjoyment of the premises lent -- the tenant can claim remedy against a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
In the context of a contractual tenancy, it is recognized that if the act of the landlord causes substantial interference with the tenant's use of the premises for the particular purpose for which they were taken notwithstanding that the act itself is done off the premises, it constitutes breach of covenant for 'quiet enjoyment' implied by Clause (c) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and the tenant has his remedy against the landlord against such a breach. (1956) 2 All. ER 28, (1953) 1 All. ER 1109 CA, (1889) 41 Ch. P. 88 CA & (1894) 2 Ch. 437 relied on. [Para 8
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 151, O.39, Rr. 1 & 2 -- relief of temporary injunction not falling under O. 39. Rr. 1 & 2 -- in proper cases may be granted under inherent powers. AIR 1962 SC 527 relied on. [Para 14
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 39, Rr. 1 & 2 -- relief of temporary injunction claimed by defendant in the suit -- incidental to the cause of action on which the plaintiff based his suit for eviction -- no obstacle in granting relief to the defendant. AIR 1975 Karnataka 137 & (1901) 1 Ch. 812 relied on. [Para 14
(6) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 39, Rr. 1 & 2 -- defendant filed a suit for permanent injunction -- obtained temporary injunction which was later on vacated -- in a later suit by the plaintiff for eviction, the defendant applied for temporary injunction -- such prayer cannot be refused merely on the ground that the defendant did not take any action on the vacation of temporary injunction. [Para 13
(7) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 12 (7) (b) -- ground under -- should be pleaded and proved -- in absence of this the landlord cannot get the accommodation vacated for making substantial additions thereto. [Para 11
(8) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 39, Rr. 1 & 2 -- matters to be seen for granting temporary injunction.
The premises were let out to the tenant for the purpose of running a maternity home. The plaintiff landlord started making construction on the terrace of the premises making it impossible for the expectant mothers to tolerate the noise. It was also not proved that the terrace was not let out with the premises.
Held: The balance of convenience was with defendant. There was also a prima facie good cause for grant of temporary injunction. The defendant was bound to suffer irreparable injury. Temporary injunction claimed by the tenant should be granted. [Paras 12 & 14
S.K. Seth, J.-1. This revision by defendant Smt. Dr. Gulshan is directed against the order dated 15-12-1983 passed by the Fourth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1983 arising out of the order dated 1-9-1983 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class I, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 15-A of 1983. Both the parties namely plaintiffs Smt. Sahdevi Pal and Ramdeo Pal and defendant Smt. Dr. Gulshan had applied for grant of temporary injunction to them under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the code of Civil procedure. The trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiffs and rejected the one made by the defendant. Being aggrieved by it, the defendant filed a miscellaneous appeal in the appellate Court. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide the impugned order.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are these: The plaintiffs had let out the suit accommodation to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- for the purpose of running a maternity home in it. The period of the lease was from 7-5-1982 to 6-4-1983. After the expiry of the said period, the plaintiff instituted the present suit against the defendant for her eviction from the suit accommodation on the grounds specified in Clauses (c) and (f) of subsection 1 of section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. With regard to Clause (f) it was alleged by them that they required the suit accommodation for starting their business of running a lodge in it. With regard to Clause (c) it was alleged by them that they had proceeded to construct two additional floors over the Chhat of the suit accommodation but the defendant created a nuisance by her acts of obstructing their labourers and Mistris from doing any work of construction and shouting filthy abuses at them. Apart from the relief of eviction, a relief of permanent injunction was also claimed by the plaintiffs against the defendant in the suit. The said relief was for restraining the defendant from interfering with the work of construction of the second and third floors being carried on by the plaintiffs over the Chhat of the suit accommodation.
3. Before the present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendant, the defendant had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs. It was alleged by the defendants in the said suit that the plaintiffs intended to construct two additional floors over the Chhat of the suit accommodation and that they and their workers were doing such acts on the Chhat of the suit accommodation that made it impossible for her to continue to run the maternity home in the suit accommodation. It was alleged by her that the idea behind such acts of the plaintiffs was to evict her forcibly from the suit accommodation. The permanent injunction claimed by her was for restraining the plaintiffs from evicting her forcibly from the suit accommodation.
4. Now, in the present suit i.e. the subsequent suit for eviction and permanent injunction brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant both the parties made applications for grant of temporary injunction to them under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 C.P.C. The plaintiffs sought the temporary injunction to the effect that the defendant be restrained from interfering with the work of construction of the second and third floors being carried on by the plaintiffs over the Chhat of the suit accommodation. The defendant sought the temporary injunction to the effect that as the construction work being' carried on by the plaintiffs over the Chhat of the suit accommodation caused interference in the running of the maternity home by her in the suit accommodation the plaintiffs be restrained from carrying out the said construction work. As stated above, the trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiffs and rejected the one made by the defendant and on a miscellaneous appeal having been filed by the defendant, the appellate Court dismissed the same vid
